Newb Rangefinder Questions

[JeremyLangford]

So how would I see the focal length or what my area of view is from a certain mm lens with a rangefinder camera?

Are different rangefinder cameras made to support different focal length lenses?

How would I see what is in focus, or see my depth-of-field? I am always using my depth-of-field preview on my SLR. Is there any thing similar for rangefinders?

 

[pdx138]

Most rangefinders have framlines to represent specific fields of view. Modern ones (other than fixed lens) usually have multiple frame line savailable to represent different focal lengths. Modern Leica's framlines change automatically based on the lens that is mounted. Bessas use a lever to select different framelines. Old rangefinders without framelines usually approximate a field of view for a 50mm lens. For focal lengths outside of what the camera has framlines for, external viewfinders are available to mount in the shoe.

There is no depth of field preview available like in a SLR, but I beleive some older Leicas have an internal DOF scale in the viewfinder. Most lenses have a DOF range on them to help. As you shoot a lot and see the results, you get to know what DOF you have with a lens at a given aperature.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Does the viewfinder have any type of DOF? Can you see background blur through the viewfinder at all?

Also, if the rangefinder viewfinder is set to 50mm, then Id have to get a seperate viewfinder for anything wider right?

I just still dont really unserstand why rangefinders are better than SLRs, other than size.

 

[wolves3012]

The VF will pretty much show everything in focus, so it's no guide at all to DOF. On the other hand, almost all SLRs are open-aperture viewing. Unless you have - and use - a stop-down you don't see the DOF on a typical SLR either, something few people do actually use most of the time.

A rangefinder VF will show the view for a 50mm lens, some cameras have framelines within the VF for other focal lengths, many don't. If they don't you need an auxilliary finder, of which there are several.

RFs aren't "better" than SLRs, they have strengths & weaknesses like any other type. Typically, they're smaller, lighter, simpler and quieter than an SLR and they focus shorter lenses more accurately (not always needed, I know). They also don't black out at the instant of exposure and suffer negligible shutter delay (ok, so SLRs aren't slow but they are slower). Lenses are easier to design, especially for short lenses (no retro-focus needed for an RF) so they give less distortion. On the other hand, RFs are rather poor at macro and micro-photography or where lenses over about 200mm are concerned.

RF or SLR, it depends on the shot and the type of photography you do; they do not suit all tastes or applications. Do you need one? Only you can answer that...

 

[JeremyLangford]

The VF will pretty much show everything in focus, so it's no guide at all to DOF. On the other hand, almost all SLRs are open-aperture viewing. Unless you have - and use - a stop-down you don't see the DOF on a typical SLR either, something few people do actually use most of the time.

A rangefinder VF will show the view for a 50mm lens, some cameras have framelines within the VF for other focal lengths, many don't. If they don't you need an auxilliary finder, of which there are several.

RFs aren't "better" than SLRs, they have strengths & weaknesses like any other type. Typically, they're smaller, lighter, simpler and quieter than an SLR and they focus shorter lenses more accurately (not always needed, I know). They also don't black out at the instant of exposure and suffer negligible shutter delay (ok, so SLRs aren't slow but they are slower). Lenses are easier to design, especially for short lenses (no retro-focus needed for an RF) so they give less distortion. On the other hand, RFs are rather poor at macro and micro-photography or where lenses over about 200mm are concerned.

RF or SLR, it depends on the shot and the type of photography you do; they do not suit all tastes or applications. Do you need one? Only you can answer that...

I love street photography. I love going through all of your guys galleries. However, I dont think I would like a rangefinder.

I like having full-control over my final picture by using DOF preview and by seeing exactly what the Area Of View or mm is.

I love shooting at 1.4 because I love having shallow depth of fields. If I were to try shooting at 1.4 on a rangefinder, I dont think I would enjoy it because I couldnt see what the final DOF will look like.

Really, I am disapointed by this. I would love to have a smaller camera like a rangefinder, but now I think I will stick with SLRs and maybe try some street photography without getting run down by whoever Im shooting.

 

[wolves3012]

I love street photography. I love going through all of your guys galleries. However, I dont think I would like a rangefinder.

I like having full-control over my final picture by using DOF preview and by seeing exactly what the Area Of View or mm is.

I love shooting at 1.4 because I love having shallow depth of fields. If I were to try shooting at 1.4 on a rangefinder, I dont think I would enjoy it because I couldnt see what the final DOF will look like.

Really, I am disapointed by this. I would love to have a smaller camera like a rangefinder, but now I think I will stick with SLRs and maybe try some street photography without getting run down by whoever Im shooting.

Well, we can't make you like one! As for full control, you still have it with an RF, just not always so pre-viewable.

Since there are plenty of RFs pretty cheap, you could always try one out at little cost. On the other hand, if your mind is closed and already decided, maybe there's not much point?

A lot of us here do have SLRs as well, we choose the tool for the job in hand. If you love street photography, a hulking great SLR is more intimidating than a small camera that looks to most people like a simple snap-shot type. It's generally a lot noisier too and the mirror-slap will cost you at least a stop in vibration. At close range I'm willing to bet that a fast lens like a f/1.4 can be focussed more quickly and more accurately on an RF.

 

[shadowfox]

Jeremy, of course you can do street-photography with SLRs. But I think you're missing out on a lot of fun if you already decided that you don't like RF without even trying one.

I usually recommend the top Olympus RF's, but they are more rare and rather expensive because they are good. To start with, get a Konica S2, or a Canonet GIII QL17. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to see how simple and clear they are to use, and watch out for the results, especially with the Konica S2, the lens on it is very sharp.

 

[JeremyLangford]

Jeremy, of course you can do street-photography with SLRs. But I think you're missing out on a lot of fun if you already decided that you don't like RF without even trying one.

I usually recommend the top Olympus RF's, but they are more rare and rather expensive because they are good. To start with, get a Konica S2, or a Canonet GIII QL17. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to see how simple and clear they are to use, and watch out for the results, especially with the Konica S2, the lens on it is very sharp.

Yea. I think I will buy one and try it out. I just figured there was some type of DOF preview.

What mm does the viewfinder show on those 2 rangefinders you mentioned?

Do they all three have interchangable lenses?

 

[principe azul]

I love shooting at 1.4 because I love having shallow depth of fields. If I were to try shooting at 1.4 on a rangefinder, I dont think I would enjoy it because I couldnt see what the final DOF will look like.

True, but with a rangefinder and some experience behind you, you will come to *know* what f/1.4 looks like with a 50mm lens at 1m or with a 35mm lens at 10m. And you have the DOF scales on the lens to help you.

I always insisted that my SLRs had DOF preview. But I never really used it. Focus screens don't show you the exact *look* of the out-of-focus areas anyway, and my preferred screen doesn't even show DOF at all (it's 100% microprism). And the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is often academic.

You may have a completely different outlook from me: all I'm saying is that the problem isn't insurmountable for many people. And with the Voigtlander 15mm lens, you wouldn't really be worrying.

It's all trade-offs. One day you'll worry that polarisers will be difficult on a rangefinder, but you'll be glad to use a rangefinder with a dark filter like infrared, or even orange - or if you're trying to focus a slow, wide lens.

The great thing about an SLR is that you can look through the lens: the great thing about a rangefinder is that you don't have to...

 

[bmattock]

I sense a troll. But I could be wrong.

In any case, there have been innumerable threads listing the major advantages and disadvantages of a rangefinder camera vis-a-vis an SLR. As has been mentioned, not many here are willing to insist that the rangefinder is always the appropriate choice, or vice-versa. They are tools, they do different, but often overlapping, jobs.

The rangefinder does not possess DOF preview because with a rangefinder, you do not look through the taking lens. A rangefinder also has the negative attribute of parallax, which means that since you are not viewing your subject through the taking lens, there is always a discrepancy (although often corrected by mechanical or optical means) between the frame you see and the frame the camera will record through the taking lens. The closer you are to your subject, the more pronounced the error will be. In addition, a rangefinder camera is generally not available with long telephoto lenses, because the 'focal base' of the mathematical triangle a rangefinder uses to calculate focus distance is insufficient for very long distances (and often for very short distances as well). Generally, one finds rangefinder lenses in the range of 28mm to 90mm, with some very wide and some fairly long lenses to either side, but less common.

All of these drawbacks make the rangefinder less than ideal for certain types of photography.

However, the rangefinder is quite good at other things, which you may not have considered.

The rangefinder shutter is quite often quieter than the SLR shutter+mirror combination. This can make the camera a better 'street camera' as it attracts less attention when fired.

The lack of an SLR mirror can also mean less camera 'shake', which means you may be able to select slower shutter speeds using a rangefinder than you can with an SLR.

The rangefinder camera can support a relatively large stack of filters, which will not affect your composition or framing because you do not look through the taking lens. An equivalent SLR might become too dark to see / focus through with enough filters on it, or in a dark enough environment.

The rangefinder camera is generally smaller and less obtrusive than an SLR, and the smallest excellent rangefinders can easily fit into a pocket. Again, this can be an advantage in street or candid photography.

The rangefinder viewfinder is the same brightness no matter what lens you have on it, or what the f-stop is set to. This means it may be possible to properly focus the camera in situation where an autofocus SLR or a manual focus SLR with a relatively slow lens might fail.

I try to use the appropriate tool for the job, although sometimes I use a specific camera just because I enjoy the experience of using it, regardless of how well or poorly-suited to the job it might be.

If you feel that a rangefinder camera is not something you'd enjoy, then by all means, do not use one.

I might add that some of us here will be shaking our heads at your statement that you like to shoot everything at f/1.4 for maximum out-of-focus effect. With respect, that's a very unusual thing to do. Very few lenses are as sharp at f/1.4 as they are at say, f/5.6 or f/8. There are other ways to obtain interesting out-of-focus effects in the background than using a fast lens wide-open, and the parts that are in focus will be sharper. There are times, yes, to use f/1.4 (or faster). But those situations always have tradeoffs. If it is your intent, then that's fine. If that's all you do because you 'like it', some may suggest that you have limited scope in your photography. Like eating only frosting off a cake.

 

[shadowfox]

Yea. I think I will buy one and try it out. I just figured there was some type of DOF preview.

What mm does the viewfinder show on those 2 rangefinders you mentioned?

Do they all three have interchangable lenses?

Roughly 50mm. No these are fixed lens rangefinders. Which is perfect since you're still treading lightly on RF.

You'd have to spend quite a bit more to get the interchangeable lense RF (Bessas, Hexar, Zeiss Ikon, Leica, ...).

or... go cheaper by getting an FSU RF (look up the sub-forum and read about them), these are charming cameras, but I wouldn't recommend it if you're still not sure whether you'll like RF or not.

HTH,
Will

PS: Read at least the last paragraph of what bmattock wrote above. It's a good advice.

 

[JeremyLangford]

I sense a troll. But I could be wrong.

I might add that some of us here will be shaking our heads at your statement that you like to shoot everything at f/1.4 for maximum out-of-focus effect.

I never said I always shoot 1.4. I said I love shallow DOFs, and so 1.4 is good with making shallow DOFs.

With respect, that's a very unusual thing to do. Very few lenses are as sharp at f/1.4 as they are at say, f/5.6 or f/8. There are other ways to obtain interesting out-of-focus effects in the background than using a fast lens wide-open, and the parts that are in focus will be sharper.

Theres no other way to get an increase in background blur except for wider apertures and longer focal lengths. And I usually stick with 50 or wider. I understand that Im sacrificing sharpness, but I dont find it a big deal.

If that's all you do because you 'like it', some may suggest that you have limited scope in your photography. Like eating only frosting off a cake.

Yea, I understand. And Im still learning as well. I plan on buying a rangefinder though, so I wont make more statements about me liking SLRs before Ive even held a real rangefinder.

 

[bmattock]

I never said I always shoot 1.4. I said I love shallow DOFs, and so 1.4 is good with making shallow DOFs.

My mistake. Apologies.

Theres no other way to get an increase in background blur except for wider apertures and longer focal lengths.

You're mistaken. The depth-of-field for any given focal length at any given aperture changes based on two things. Distance from subject and circle of confusion (or, to keep it more practical, size of recording media). Large-format cameras can quite capably produce intense out-of-focus areas in portraiture at f/32, for example. This is likewise true of macro photography, where the distance to the subject is quite short, typically.

In addition, if one understands (for example) that the DoF for a given lens at a given aperture at a given distance from the subject extend X feet in front of the subject and Y feet in back of the subject, one can move the camera/subject distance such that Y is smaller and X is larger. Apparent DoF is increased, and the only thing that has changed is distance from film to subject.

And I usually stick with 50 or wider. I understand that Im sacrificing sharpness, but I dont find it a big deal.

Entirely your choice.

Yea, I understand. And Im still learning as well. I plan on buying a rangefinder though, so I wont make more statements about me liking SLRs before Ive even held a real rangefinder.

 

[JeremyLangford]

My mistake. Apologies.



You're mistaken. The depth-of-field for any given focal length at any given aperture changes based on two things. Distance from subject and circle of confusion (or, to keep it more practical, size of recording media). Large-format cameras can quite capably produce intense out-of-focus areas in portraiture at f/32, for example. This is likewise true of macro photography, where the distance to the subject is quite short, typically.

In addition, if one understands (for example) that the DoF for a given lens at a given aperture at a given distance from the subject extend X feet in front of the subject and Y feet in back of the subject, one can move the camera/subject distance such that Y is smaller and X is larger. Apparent DoF is increased, and the only thing that has changed is distance from film to subject.

Yea you're right. I was referring to only my camera though so the format couldnt change my DOF unless I got a whole new camera.

I know subject distance changes DOF. I was just referring to changing DOF without changing the AOV, which can only be done by Aperture and Focal length.